Can MEMTEST86+ check memory running at faster bus speed?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin wrote:
Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly
chosen bus frequency settings?

Yes, chipset/bus freq is set by the BIOS when the machine
boots, not by the OS.

memtest86 is a very good, extensive, memory tester.
It is not a intensive (high bandwidth) as I would like,
so I wrote some in my CPUburn package. Try `burnMMX`.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

On 15 Oct 2004, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin
wrote:
Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly
chosen bus frequency settings?

Yes, chipset/bus freq is set by the BIOS when the machine
boots, not by the OS.

memtest86 is a very good, extensive, memory tester.
It is not a intensive (high bandwidth) as I would like,
so I wrote some in my CPUburn package. Try `burnMMX`.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

Looks neat.

Does your CPUburn have any special points when compared to the cpu
testers discussed at Radifed?

Like Prime95, Motherboard Monitor's 'Heat Up', HotCPU Tester Pro
Lite, etc.

http://radified.com/Articles/stability_testing.htm

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips CrackerJack wrote:
Does your CPUburn have any special points when compared to
the cpu testers discussed at Radifed?

Like Prime95, Motherboard Monitor's 'Heat Up', HotCPU Tester
Pro Lite, etc. http://radified.com/Articles/stability_testing.htm

I really haven't had much time to look around. If I had the
time, I'd be releasing `burnRAM` [need win32 port] and `burnP7`
[needs some signals work].

It's very easy to get "100% CPU utilization" according to
the OS. `jmp $` or `while(1);` will do. The OS always has
something to run (not the idle thread), so it thinks it's busy.
If you can't get 100% (MS-Win9*), it's a priority issue.

But this is only around 70% of max power draw. Not all the
chip circuits are kept busy. I've crafted my burn* pgms in
assembly (natch!) to try to keep as much busy as possible.
Without any constraint of actually doing useful work!

Some programs can keep the CPU 100% runnable but really not
be compute-limited. Doing useful work is a bit of a limit.
I stuff useless instructions in. SETI@home was notorious for
very odd times for work unit completion (memory fetch bound).

I _don't_ claim my pgms are the hottest possible. I'm sure
that Intel and AMD use better ones as part of their CPU
manufacturing testing. But those are deep dark secrets.
Mine is Open Source.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

(email invalid, changed ISP -- you figure it out)

Franklin wrote:
Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
tests before Windows is launched.


Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.

On 15 Oct 2004, S.Heenan wrote:

Franklin wrote:
Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good
memory tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the
floppy. So it tests before Windows is launched.


Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.

ISTR there are now 12 tests. Right?

CrackerJack wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004, S.Heenan wrote:

Franklin wrote:
Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good
memory tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the
floppy. So it tests before Windows is launched.


Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.

ISTR there are now 12 tests. Right?



That may well be the case. I can not remember trying extended tests in the
newest version.
I imagine the same keystrokes apply.
http://www.memtest.org/